9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Economic Offences Court in Hyderabad 2. Period of limitation for prosecution 3. Location of the registered office of the petitioner's company 4. Exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Jurisdiction of the Economic Offences Court in Hyderabad: The petitioner argued that the Economic Offences Court in Hyderabad lacked jurisdiction as the company's registered office was in Mumbai. However, the standing counsel for the respondent contended that the registered office was in Hyderabad. The court ruled that the determination of the company's registered office location should be decided by the concerned court during the trial. The court emphasized that the complaint specifically stated the company's registered office as in the capital of Andhra Pradesh, and hence, this issue could not be conclusively decided at this stage. Period of Limitation for Prosecution: The petitioner claimed that the prosecution was beyond the period of limitation as the offenses were not continuous. The court held that the question of whether the offenses were continuous or not should be determined during the trial. The court highlighted that inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice or secure the ends of justice. Since the complaint alleged a prima facie case under section 220(3) of the Companies Act for failure to submit annual returns, an offense punishable under section 220, the court found no grounds to interfere with the proceedings. Location of the Registered Office of the Petitioner's Company: The petitioner argued that the company's registered office was in Mumbai, while the respondent contended it was in Hyderabad. The court reiterated that this issue would be decided by the concerned court during the trial. The court noted that the complaint specifically mentioned the company's registered office as in the capital of Andhra Pradesh, indicating that this matter could not be conclusively determined at this stage. Exercise of Inherent Powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.: The court clarified that inherent powers could be invoked under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to execute court orders, prevent miscarriage of justice, or ensure justice. As the allegations in the complaint established a prima facie case under section 220(3) of the Companies Act for failure to submit annual returns, an offense under section 220, the court found no justification to intervene. Consequently, the criminal petition was dismissed, and the interim stay granted was vacated.
|
